International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences

Vol. 9 , No. 4, April, 2019, E-ISSN: 2 22 2 -6990 © 2019 HRMARS

School Leaders’ Competencies that make a difference in the

Era of Education 4.0: A Conceptual Framework
Tai Mei Kin, Omar Abdull Kareem
To Link this Article: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v9-i4/5836 DOI: 10.6007/IJARBSS/v9-i4/5836

Received: 12 March 2019, Revised: 20 April 2019, Accepted: 1 May 2019

Published Online: 25 May 2019

In-Text Citation: (Kin & Kareem, 2019)

To Cite this Article: Kin, T. M., & Kareem, O. A. (2019). School leaders’ competencies that make a difference in
the era of Education 4.0: A conceptual framewor. International Journal of Academic Research in Business
and Social Sciences, 9(5), 214–225.

Copyright: © 2019 The Author(s)

Published by Human Resource Management Academic Research Society (www.hrmars.com)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute,
translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full
attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen
at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Vol. 9, No. 4, 2019, Pg. 214 - 225

http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/IJARBSS JOURNAL HOMEPAGE

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://hrmars.com/index.php/pages/detail/publication-ethics

214
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 9 , No. 4, April, 2019, E-ISSN: 2 22 2 -6990 © 2019 HRMARS

School Leaders’ Competencies that make a difference

in the Era of Education 4.0: A Conceptual Framework

Tai Mei Kin1, Omar Abdull Kareem2

1&2 Department of Educational Management, Faculty of Management and Economics
Sultan Idris Education University, 35900 Tanjong Malim
Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia
Email: taimeikin@fpe.upsi.edu.my
Abstract
The Fourth Industrial Revolution (FIR) has already moved past our doorstep and has influenced
unprecedented changes in every industry. The educational ecosystem is no exception and Education
4.0 has been developed to respond to these new demands. As the quality of school leadership is one
of the important determinants of student outcomes, and effective school management is heavily
dependent on school leaders’ professional competencies, there is an urgent need to re-skill or up-
skill school leaders’ competency to prepare the country to compete in FIR. While the need of effective
school leadership for the era of Education 4.0 is widely acknowledged, there is much less certainty
about which leadership behaviors are most likely to produce favorable outcomes. The conceptual
framework derived in this paper provides a basis for identifying the critical educational leadership
competencies that include a) Leading for Learning; b) Integrity and Accountability; c) Communication;
d) Collaboration; e) Critical Thinking; f) Creative and Innovative; g) Decision Making; h) Problem
Solving; i) Managing Change; j) Entrepreneurial; k) Digital Literacy; and l) Emotional Intelligence. The
paper may provide useful feedback in designing future training programmes for school leaders in
enhancing their competence in meeting the needs and challenges of Education 4.0.
Keywords: School Leadership; Competency; Education 4.0; the Fourth Industrial Revolution;
Educational Transformation; School Leadership Professional Development

Introduction
We are in the midst of the Fourth Industrial Revolution or Industry 4.0. Innovative technology has
transformed the social, economic, ecological and cultural aspects of life rapidly. The educational
ecosystem is no exception and Education 4.0 has been developed to respond to these new demands
so that the education arena can stay current and effective in a landscape of constant change. Schools
are at the core of education and thus are facing unprecedented changes and challenges to prepare

215
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 9 , No. 4, April, 2019, E-ISSN: 2 22 2 -6990 © 2019 HRMARS

students in meeting changing education needs in the era of the Education 4.0 that has given a new
impetus to educational transformation.
As the main change agents in the school reforms, school leaders have the daunting task of
building an effective learning ecosystem to prepare students for a future in the Industrial Revolution
4.0 era. They need to balance external demands with the paramount need to reorganize and
reengineer schools especially pertaining learning and teaching processes. As such, the capacity to act,
rather than the capacity to think, becomes the critical measure for effective school leadership. The
success or failure of these actions would determine not only the future of the students, but also the
power of the nation. Hence, the need for effective school leadership with effective competence to
meet the complex and multifaceted demands of the Education 4.0 era is indisputable. This legitimizes
the need for something ‘new’ in school leadership capacity especially their competence to best lead
change in schools.
This situation has called for a closer examination of school leaders’ competencies as their
competence links significantly with student achievements (Tai & Omar, 2018c). Towards this end, the
question posed is whether Malaysian school leaders are sufficiently competent to lead school change
effectively and transform the school system successfully. Although the need of effective school
leadership for the era of Education 4.0 is widely acknowledged, there is much less certainty about
which leadership behaviors are most likely to produce favorable outcomes. Indeed, to equip school
leaders with adequate competencies to lead school change effectively in this Education 4.0 era, we
need a reliable and valid model to identify those critical leadership competencies which can help
school leaders to gauge school improvement and effectiveness.
Although there are various models on school leadership competency but these models mostly
are developed in Western educational settings. As the historical, cultural contexts and education
system of Malaysia is different from those in Western countries, the lack of scientifically sound and
local developed model on school leadership competency for the era of Education 4.0 necessitates a
study to identify those critical competencies. Considering school leadership as a significant predictor
of effective school reform (Hallinger, 2011; Huber & Muijs, 2010; Welch & Hodge, 2018), therefore,
to develop an indigenous school leadership competency model in the era of Education 4.0 from
Malaysian perspective is imperative and appears to be a meaningful task.
The Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 was launched to transform the Malaysian
education system to be on par with advanced countries. One important aspiration is to have a high
quality school principal in every school because they are the transformational leaders who are
expected to lead change effectively (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2016). Unless school leaders are
equipped with subsequent competencies and initiate the process competently, school reform will fall
short of the ambitious aspirations set out in the Blueprint. Hence, school leadership development is
an urgent priority in order to bring about effective educational leadership that reform and transform.
If school leadership is examined from a behavioral construct based on competencies, and focus on
the most critical competencies that can be learned, there is little doubt that processes of school
leadership development can be fine-tuned for greater efficiency; specifically in enhancing leadership
capacity to respond to the needs of the Education 4.0 and ultimately to transform the school system
effectively.

216
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 9 , No. 4, April, 2019, E-ISSN: 2 22 2 -6990 © 2019 HRMARS

Literature Review
The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Education 4.0
Industrial revolutions have evolved in several stages for 200 years since its first emergence. Every
industrial revolution has had significant impact on global society, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution
is no different. The main characteristic of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is the interconnectedness
of the whole value chain in the global society that has weaved together supposedly autonomous
systems created by intelligent networks of machines and data; the four crucial components for this
new era are the internet of things, the internet of data, the internet of services, and the internet of
people (Herold, 2016). Technology has become integrated into virtually every facet of life, influencing
our lifestyles and values significantly.
To respond to the demands of Industry 4.0, Education 4.0 was developed and this has given a
new impetus to educational transformation in terms of pedagogy, content, curricula and educational
management. For instance, instead of traditional teaching aids, technology-based tools and resources
are being used to drive education in non-traditional ways (Tang, Wong & Cheng, 2015); teachers
become facilitators of learning, rather than repositories of cultural wisdom to be delivered to their
students (Dubovicki & Jukic, 2017). Instead of maintaining an exclusive focus on cognitive
development, schools are places to construct knowledge and ideas (O’ Flaherty & Beal, 2018). More
importantly, the nature of learning is a uniquely personal and social activity between people that
caters to every learner’s changing needs, talent, passion and interest (Brown-Martin, 2018).
Therefore, it is believed that Education 4.0 will empower students towards innovations, resulting
in raising achievement levels and greater student learning outcomes. Consequently, it creates
trained, qualified professionals who are equipped with interdisciplinary thinking, social skills and
other technical skills for a highly globalised and technological-driven world of work (Brown-Martin,
2018). Education is at the heart of preparing present and future generations to thrive in the
competitive world (Mohamed, Valcke & De Wever, 2017). Transforming the education system from
one that is based on facts and procedures, to one that actively applies knowledge to collaborative
problem solving in the real world will be the main characteristic of Education 4.0 that will help
overcome the challenges of Industry 4.0.

School leadership and competency

Leadership plays a critical role in any organizational development. The changing global conditions in
the era of Industrial Revolution 4.0 such as the intensifying efficiency requirements, the pressing need
for continuing learning and the advanced digital technologies call for new approaches to
organizational leadership (Lappalainen, 2015). Over the last decade, research in leadership
development has moved towards identifying the leadership competencies that help to accomplish
organizational goals (Bitterova, Haskova & Pisonova, 2014; Shet, Patil & Chandawarkar, 2017).
Generally, competencies are viewed as clusters of knowledge, skills, abilities and behaviours that
demonstrate excellent performance (Duffy, 2009). These elements differentiate between leaders
from non-leaders (Bharwani & Talib, 2017; Bueno & Tubbs, 2005).
In the field of education, leadership role is changing along with the shifting expectations for
educational excellence. School leaders need to respond to the needs of the Education 4.0 with
sufficient competencies so as they can be the effective leaders who can bring the schools to the
217
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 9 , No. 4, April, 2019, E-ISSN: 2 22 2 -6990 © 2019 HRMARS

transformational edge. As effective leadership is of central concern in school system (Ministry of

Education, 2016), it is essential for school leaders to be agile and adapt their leadership practice to
meet the needs of the students, stakeholders and the school systems in the era of Education 4.0
globally and locally. With the increasing demands for educational excellence, school leaders can only
become effective leaders unless they are able to gain new knowledge, skills and ability through
effective professional development programmes or interventions systematically and continually.
In an attempt to identify competencies that predict effective school leadership in the era of
Education 4.0 in Malaysia, few aspects need to be taken into consideration: a) the special features of
the schools especially about its moral purpose and the core workforce is professional (Hallinger &
Walker, 2017; Wendy Pan, Nyeu & Cheng, 2017); b) the major trends that have been identified
occurring in the area of school leadership (Abrahamsen & Aas, 2016; Leithwood, Harris & Hopkins,
2008; Townsend, 2011); c) qualities of effective school leaders identified by extensive educational
research (Bitterov et al., 2014; Day & Sammons, 2013; Drydale & Gurr, 2011; Freeman & Auster, 2011;
Gray & Streshly, 2010; Hallinger & Huber, 2012; Welch & Hodge, 2018); d) the contextual changes
and future challenges in Malaysian education system (Ministry of Education Malaysia; 2016; Samuel,
Tee & Pe Symaco, 2017); and e) future trends in leadership development across industries (Ng, 2015;
Petrie, 2014; Shet et al., 2017).

The Conceptual Framework of the study

The study is confined to one variable i.e. school leadership competency for the era of education 4.0
with 12 respective indicators. As shown in Figure 1, a total of twelve competencies have been
identified for the study. The inner circle illustrates the core focus of school leaders' competency ---
Leading for Learning. In the pursuit of teaching and learning excellence in the era of Education 4.0,
instead of 'knowledge feeding', school leaders need to be competent of how to lead and influence
teachers playing their role in constructing knowledge on teaching and learning (Wendy Pan et al.,
2017). Indeed all change involves learning. Propelled by a deep personal desire to learn and a
commitment to help teachers learn, the school leaders are learners first, leaders second; their
leadership occurs as a by-product of their learning that opens many new possibilities for enhancing
school performance.

218
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 9 , No. 4, April, 2019, E-ISSN: 2 22 2 -6990 © 2019 HRMARS

The outer ring of the inner circle is the competency of Integrity and Accountability. As schools
are organizations contribute to the moral education of the young, school leaders have to prove that
they are able to build moral communities by sustaining moral leadership in the day-to-day
management. Organizations need a culture of ethics to truly make their quality initiatives work and
in fact it is the most critical variable in sustaining the performance of the organization (Maguad &
Krone, 2009; Wong, 1998). Simply put, the moral imperative of professional leadership is at the core
of leadership (Lee, 2015).
There are another eight important competencies in the outer ring of the model. Communication
refers to the extent how school leaders are able to communicate effectively their vision and beliefs
by direction, words and deeds to achieve the school goals (Smith & Riley, 2012). Communication is a
social matter in which negotiating differences in understanding among communicators is a primary
priority. Importantly, communication is crucial to decision making because the decision making
process is increasingly interactive (Smoliar & Sprague, 2003).
Collaboration focuses on leadership practice that the relations among school leaders, staff and
stakeholders relate more to interactions than actions. Successful schools assume that school
improvement and effectiveness is a collective rather than an individual enterprise (Tai & Omar,
2018a). School leaders need to acquire the understanding, skills, and experience to collaborate
successfully. Within the context of Education 4.0, school leaders need to move away from being the
sole decision maker to involving others in the decision making process that foster school effectiveness
(Slater, 2005).
219
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 9 , No. 4, April, 2019, E-ISSN: 2 22 2 -6990 © 2019 HRMARS

Critical Thinking refers to the ability to analyze, evaluate, synthesize and using various types of
reasoning as appropriate to the situation (Joe, 2011). More generally, it is about reasonable reflective
thinking. Critical thinking is a necessary component of school change as school leaders who are strong
critical thinkers see things from different perspectives and used to contextualize their worldview
within a bigger picture. Particularly, critical thinkers consistently attempt to lead their organizations
rationally, reasonably and empathetically (Mason, 2007).
Creative and Innovative is defined as the competence to demonstrate originality and
inventiveness in work. Creativity is the ability to think outside the box and conceive new ideas,
methods, materials, products and actions whereas innovation involves the creation of new
knowledge or new combinations of old insights to make tangible and useful contribution in enhancing
school effectiveness (Mainemelis, Kark & Epitropaki , 2015; Moos, 2015).
Decision Making is the competence of making a choice among alternative courses of action
(Smith & Riley, 2012) that creates the right conditions for school effectiveness. Due to the more
complex operational milieu in which school leaders are now working, school leaders need to confront
and resolve conflicting interests as they endeavour to balance a variety of values and expectations in
their decision‐making. A skilful school leader needs to optimize his or her most valued beliefs,
responsibilities and obligations to make good decision that minimize adverse consequences.
Problem Solving is defined as the ability to develop new ideas and solution or turn problems into
opportunities (Angeli & Valanides, 2012). As school leaders are those who spends a lot of time solving
instructional problems in the school, and whose performances in solving those problems have a
tangible effect on the results of the students at the school, they need an expert’s ability to use
particular processes to help the school to be more effective and successful.
Managing Change refers to the competence to induce change, getting others to change,
upholding and champion constant change in schools (Tai & Omar, 2018a). The process of leading and
managing school change in the current era is becoming more complex and this has placed school
leaders centre stage as the persons responsible for the implementation of these changes and
accountable for results. Yet, balancing the demands of public accountability on national tests with
the educational needs of all students is a problematic balancing act for most school leaders (Holmes,
Clement & Albright, 2013).
Entrepreneurial is defined as the ability to organize and manage school enterprisingly with
considerable initiative and risk to create opportunities for betterment of the school (Akbar & Obaid,
2014). According to Woods (2015), entrepreneurialism has been strongly advocated in Western
education policy as requisite to creatively and constructively managing the challenges and risks of
the performative era. As it helps school leaders to be sensitive and responsive to issues of context,
points to the progressive and transformative possibilities, it is imperative for them to equip with the
concerned competence.
Besides, the proficiency in the usage of the technologies and the ability to promote a school
culture that encourage the integration of ICT in teaching, learning and management or Digital Literacy
is considered as a key competency to educational quality (Purvanova & Bono, 2009). The era of
Education 4.0 is all about embracing digital technology. Despite of obtaining high level of digital
literacy, the main task of school leaders in this era is how to increase pedagogically meaningful use

220
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 9 , No. 4, April, 2019, E-ISSN: 2 22 2 -6990 © 2019 HRMARS

of ICT in class and out of class that promotes teaching and learning appropriate for the needs of 21st-
century students.
Emotional Intelligence (EI) is a set of abilities involved in reasoning about emotions, and using
emotions to inform cognitive activities such as reasoning and problem solving (Omar & Tai, 2018b).
EI is located at the outer ring of the whole model as it is the basic competency that school leaders
need to apply across the complete terrain of the organization. School leaders must be able to run
organizations that address the emotional well-being of staff and students if it is to be effective. These
are the interpersonal and adaptive competencies that the school leaders conduct themselves and
interact with the working environment that makes human work more efficient.

The importance of the School Leadership Competency Model for the era of Education 4.0
(SLCMEdu4.0)
The development of School Leadership Competency Model for the era of Education 4.0
(SLCMEduc4.0) is an important effort for identifying the most effective competencies of school
leaders in enhancing school effectiveness by taking into consideration the challenges of the era of
Education 4.0 from local educational perspective. Such initiative is parallel with the 5th shift of the
eleven operational shifts prioritized in the Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025 ---'Ensure high-
performing school leaders in every school’. It would contribute to school improvement and overall
effectiveness of schools across nation whereby effective school leadership is rely on the performance
of school leaders that basically links significantly with their professional competencies.
Specifically, from a human resource development perspective, the model is an effective training
needs analysis tool that can provide useful feedback in designing future training programs for school
leaders in enhancing their competencies in school effectiveness. These critical competencies can be
learned, and a greater understanding of their influence can help the Ministry of Education to engage
resources more effectively to equip school leaders with relevant competencies in meeting the needs
and challenges of Education 4.0. The study will equip the State Department of Education and District
Department of Education with information about the professional performance of school leaders
based on competency in leading schools in the era of Education 4.0. Such understanding will provide
practical insights on how to effectively manage school leaders’ professional development
programmes; professional development is a coherent part of school reform that promotes and
maximizes the individual and shared learning of the school leaders.
The SLCMEduc4.0 can also be used as an important indigenous model in conducting
educational leadership courses and postgraduate studies offered by the local universities. The
SLCMEduc4.0 not only adds to the body of knowledge on educational leadership, it will expand and
enhance the understanding of the students on school leadership professional development in a local
context in adapting to the demands of Education 4.0. In terms of research, the SLCMEduc4.0 will offer
a promising new instrument for measuring school leadership competency in the Malaysian context.
With good validity and reliability, this instrument can provide local as well as international
researchers with more evidence-based and timely assessment.

221
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 9 , No. 4, April, 2019, E-ISSN: 2 22 2 -6990 © 2019 HRMARS

Conclusion
Building a conceptual framework is the most basic step in conducting a meaningful study. The
conceptual framework of the current study may help to understand and explain the critical leadership
competencies that facilitate change in schools in the era of Education 4.0. The increasing demands
for school reforms in the era of Education 4.0 continuously challenge the roles of school leaders. As
schools continually embark on programmes pertaining to school effectiveness, school leaders need
to equip themselves with subsequent competencies so as to transform the school system effectively.
No school leader will embrace any school change if he/she is unable to perform the new task
competently. On a practical level, this study proposes the SLCMEduc4.0 to promote successful
educational leadership development that is appropriate for both the professional development
activities of present school leaders, and particularly, set qualification criteria for prospective school
leaders. In summary, the study may enhance the leadership development of Malaysian school
principals towards productive change in the era of Education 4.0.
References
Abrahamsen, H., & Aas, M. (2016). School leadership for the future: Heroic or distributed?
Translating international discourses in Norwegian policy documents, Journal of Educational
Administration and History, 48(1), 68-88.
Akbar, F., & Haitham Obaid, A. A. (2014). Explaining the relationship between creativity,
Innovation and entrepreneurship. International Journal of Economy, Management and Social
Sciences, 3(12), 1-4.
Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2012). Epistemological beliefs and ill-structured problem-solving
In solo and paired contents. Educational Technology and Society, 15(1), 2-14
Bharwani, S., & Talib, P. (2017). Competencies of hotel general managers: A conceptual
Framework. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 29, 393– 418. doi:
10.1108/IJCHM-09-2015-0448
Bitterova, M., Haskova, A., & Pisonova, M. (2014). School leader's competencies in
Management area. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 149, 114-118.
Brown-Martin G. (2018). Education and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Retrieved from
https://medium.com/learning-re-imagined/education-and-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-
cd6bcd7256a3
Bueno, C., & Tubbs, S. (2005). Identifying global leadership competencies: An exploratory
Study. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 5(1/2), 80-87.
Day, C., & Sammons, P. (2013). Successful leadership: A review of the international literature. CfBT
Education Trust, UK: The University of Nottingham.
Dubovicki, S, & Jukic, R. (2017). The importance of acquiring pedagogical and didactic
Competencies of future teachers – the Croatian context. Early Child Development and Care,
187(1), 1557-1567. doi: org/1080/03004430.2017.1307839
Drydale, L., & Gurr, D. (2011). Theory and practice of successful school leadership in
Australia. School Leadership and Management, 31(4), 355-368.
Duffy, F. (2009). Change leadership competencies (Part 2). Retrieved from
http://cnx.org/content/m19578/1.4/
222
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 9 , No. 4, April, 2019, E-ISSN: 2 22 2 -6990 © 2019 HRMARS

Freeman, R.E., & Auster, E.R. (2011). Values, authenticity and responsible leadership.
Journal of Business Ethics, 98(1), 15-23.
Gray, S. P., & Streshly, W. A. (2010). Leading good schools to greatness: Mastering what
great principals do well. Alberta: Sage Publication.
Hallinger, P. (2011). Making education reform happen: Is there an ‘Asian’ way? Retrieved
From http://www.ied.edu.hk//apclc/roundtable2011/paper/Philip%20Hallinger.pdf.
Hallinger, P., & Huber, S. (2012). School leadership that makes a difference: International
Perspectives. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(4), 359-367.
Hallinger, P., & Walker, A. (2017). Leading learning in Asia: Emerging empirical insights from
Five societies. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(2), 130-146. doi: 10.1108/JEA-02-2017-
0015
Herold, G. (2016). Leadership in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. San Francisco: Stanton
Chase. Retrieved from https://executiveacademy.at/fileadmin_synced_
assets/documents/White_Papers/Leadership-in-Fourth-Industrial-Revolution-Stanton-
Chase.pdf
Holmes, K., Clement, J., & Albright, J. (2013). The complex task of leading educational
Change in schools. School Leadership and Management, 33(3), 270-283. doi:
10.1080/13632434.2013.800477
Huber, S.G., & Muijs, D. (2010). School leadership effectiveness: The growing insight in the
Importance of school leadership for the quality and development of schools and their pupils. In
S.G. Huber (Ed.). School leadership: The International perspectives (pp. 79-100). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Springer.
Joe, Y. F.L. (2011). An introduction to critical thinking and creativity: Think more, think better.
United State: John Wile & Sons.
Lappalainen, P. (2015). Predictors of effective leadership in industry: Should engineering
Education focus on traditional intelligence, personality, or emotional intelligence? European
Journal of Engineering Education, 40(2), 222-233.
Lee, W. O. (2015). Moral leadership: Where the East meets the West. Multicultural education
Review, 4(1), 29-50. doi: 10.1080/23770031.2009.11102888
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
Leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28, 27–42.
Maguad, B. A., & Krone, R. M. (2009). Ethics and moral leadership: Quality linkages. Total
Quality Management, 20(2), 209-222.
Mainemelis , C., Kark , R., & Epitropaki , O. (2015). Creative Leadership: A Multi-Context
Conceptualization. The Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 393-482.
Mason, M. (2007). Critical thinking and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory
Banner, 39(4), 339-349. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00343.x
Ministry of Education Malaysia (2016). Malaysia education blueprint 2013-2025: 2016 annual
Report. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Mohamed, Valcke, M., & De Wever, B. (2017). Are they ready to teach? Student teachers’
Readiness for the job with reference to teacher competence frameworks. Journal of Education
for Teaching, 43(2), 151-10. doi:org/1.1080/02607476.201.1257509
223
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 9 , No. 4, April, 2019, E-ISSN: 2 22 2 -6990 © 2019 HRMARS

Moos, L. (2015). Leadership for creativity. International Journal of Leadership in Education,

18(2), 178–196. doi. 10.1080/13603124.2014.915060
Ng, F. S. D. (2015). Leadership learning for complex organizations. Cogen Education.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2015.1017312
O’Flaherty, J, & Beal, E. M. (2018). Core competencies and high leverage practices of the
Beginning teacher: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Education for teaching, 44(4), 461-
478.doi: org/10.1080/02607476.218.1450826
Petrie, N. (2014). Future trends in leadership development. Colorado Springs: Centre
For Creative Leadership.
Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J.E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face
And virtual teams. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 343-357.
Samuel, M., Tee, M. Y., & Pe Symaco, L. (2017). Education in Malaysia: Development and
Challenges. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore Pet Ltd.
Shet, S. V., Patil, S. V., & Chandawarkar, R. M. (2017). Framework for methodical review of
Literature on leadership competencies, Cogent Business and Management, 4. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2017.1309123
Slater, L. (2005). Leadership for collaboration: An affective process. International Journal of
Leadership in Education, 8(4), 321-333. doi: 10.1080/13603120500088745
Smith, L., & Riley, D. (2012). School leadership in times of crisis. School Leadership and
Management, 32(1), 57-71.
Smoliar, S. W., & Sprague, R. (2003). Technology Support for Communication and
Understanding, Journal of Decision Systems, 2(2), 123-139. doi: 10.3166/jds.12.123-139
Tai, M. K., & Omar, A. K. (2018a). A comparative analysis on principal change
Leadership competencies in Malaysian high- and mediocre-performing secondary schools. Asia
Pacific Journal of Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/02188791.2018.1476319
Tai, M. K., & Omar, A. K. (2018b). Emotional intelligence of school Principals in managing
Change: A comparison among high, mediocre and low-performing secondary schools in Malaysia.
International Studies in Educational Administration, 46(3), 67-88.
Tai, M. K., & Omar, A. K. (2018c). The relationship between emotional
intelligence of school principal in managing change and teacher attitudes towards change.
International Journal of Leadership in Education ----
Theory and Practice. doi:org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1481535
Tang, S. Y. F., Wong, A. K., & Cheng, M.M.H. (2015). The preparation of highly motivated and
profesionally competent teachers in initial teacher educatio. Journal of Education for Teaching,
41(2), 12-144. doi:org/10/108002607476.2015.1010875
Townsend, T. (2011). School leadership in the twenty-first century: Different approaches to
Common problems? School Leadership and Management, 31(2), 93-103.
Welch, J., & Hodge, M. (2018). Assessing impact: The role of leadership competency models
In developing effective school leaders. School Leadership and Management, 38(4), 355-377. doi:
10.1080/13632434.2017.1411900
Wendy Pan, H., Nyeu, F., & Cheng, S. (2017). Leading school for learning: Principal practices In Taiwan.
Journal of Educational Administration, 55(2), 168-185. doi: 10.1108/JEA-06-2016-0069
224
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences
Vol. 9 , No. 4, April, 2019, E-ISSN: 2 22 2 -6990 © 2019 HRMARS

Wong, K. (1998). Culture and moral leadership in education. Peabody Journal of

Education, 3(2), 106-125. doi: 10.1207/s15327930pje7302_5
Woods, P. (2015). Sense of purpose: Reconfiguring entrepreneurialism in public education.
Advances in Educational Administration, 19, 223-241.

225